Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House advances $750 million long-range building bill after debating amendments
Summary
House Bill 5, Montana's long-range building and major repair bill, advanced on second reading after floor debate and failed floor amendments; the bill contains major-repairs and capital-development components and includes directions to prioritize mental health and corrections projects.
The Montana House on March 26 advanced House Bill 5, the state's long-range building program bill that packages major repair and capital development projects for the biennium ending June 30, 2027.
Majority Leader Jay Fitzpatrick, sponsor on the floor, described three components: a major repairs section (projects under $2.5 million or certain smaller construction), capital development for larger projects funded with a mix of state special revenues and federal project resources, and appropriations for routine operations of facilities once constructed. Fitzpatrick said the major-repairs section lists 56 projects totaling about $43.3 million and that the overall bill is roughly $750 million in round numbers, a decrease of about $400 million from 2023.
Floor debate centered on two amendments. Representative Adam Vinton offered an amendment to redirect potential funds to the local bridge fund if a separate senate bill failed; members opposed using House Bill 5 to create a new state subsidy for local bridges, and the amendment failed on the floor. Representative John Falk offered an amendment to remove an inflation reserve; Falk argued the reserve contributes to rising construction costs and called some accounts "slush funds." Committee sponsors and others, including Fitzpatrick, argued keeping a small reserve is prudent to address bid and cost overruns. The Falk amendment failed 34-66.
Fitzpatrick and other supporters said the bill includes design standardization and bundling to save costs and that many projects are funded with license or special-revenue dollars rather than general fund. Opponents raised concerns about growth in new subsidy programs and general fund pressure. Representative Paul Fielder noted the bill's size and questioned particular line items.
The House voted 84 to 16 to advance House Bill 5 on second reading. The bill’s funding mix, project prioritization direction, and the use of standard designs and bundling were highlighted as committee decisions intended to reduce cost and accelerate high-need projects such as mental health and corrections facilities.
Next steps: House Bill 5 advanced from second reading and will proceed through the remaining legislative process and any subsequent budgetary actions needed for implementation.
